- the franchise is alive only as long as there are big new things introduced.

- the franchise is alive as long as interest is maintained/continued.

Click to expand...

Well, I think both are correct (remove "big" and replace with "official" in your first one). But in the second sense, Metropolis is still alive, even though the last and only movie was made way back in 1927. Oh, there's "interest", sure.

I don't deny that the people who loved Star Trek before continued to love it. But the point is that the series and movies (the meat of the franchise) were no longer making good money. In that respect, Abrams and his collaborators "brought back" Star Trek.

Now, I don't think Paramount would've let the franchise lay there for too long before trying again, but if the 2009 movie had bombed, that might've been the deathknell for Trek.

I think what is meant is that he/she prefers Trek that offers something to think about and maybe doesn't have to spell everything out.

Click to expand...

Well in that respect Into Darkness did something right, I think, since there's a lot of non-spoken plot points that we keep debating -- because they were either cut from the movie or left out due to the filmmakers deeming it wasn't necessary to do exposition on them.

I think what is meant is that he/she prefers Trek that offers something to think about and maybe doesn't have to spell everything out.

Click to expand...

Well in that respect Into Darkness did something right, I think, because there's a lot of non-spoken plot points that we keep debating because they were either cut from the movie or left out because it was deemed it wasn't necessary to do exposition on them.

Click to expand...

No, I think they're referring to something more than that. I think they mean something with a message or asks questions.

Saved...that's a really big word, but he undoubtedly brought Star Trek back to the forefront to where a younger audience is beginning to take notice again. And I, as part of the older audience, have been really happy with what he's done - with both stories.

Do we always have to keep going down the same rhetorical path? We're going to start deconstructing classic Trek yet again to bring it down to JJ Trek's level?

Click to expand...

How is acknowledging what Trek has always been "bringing it down"? Honestly, if people didn't keep trying to compare Abrams movies to the rest of the franchise (with the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses on), the comparisons would likely stop.

Do we always have to keep going down the same rhetorical path? We're going to start deconstructing classic Trek yet again to bring it down to JJ Trek's level?

Click to expand...

How is acknowledging what Trek has always been "bringing it down"? Honestly, if people didn't keep trying to compare Abrams movies to the rest of the franchise (with the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses on), the comparisons would likely stop.

Click to expand...

In fairness when you label something with a familiar name then comparisons are inevitable.

Every time there's a new version of 007 or Superman (or whatever) it's always compared with previous versions.

Do we always have to keep going down the same rhetorical path? We're going to start deconstructing classic Trek yet again to bring it down to JJ Trek's level?

Click to expand...

How is acknowledging what Trek has always been "bringing it down"? Honestly, if people didn't keep trying to compare Abrams movies to the rest of the franchise (with the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses on), the comparisons would likely stop.

Click to expand...

In fairness when you label something with a familiar name then comparisons are inevitable.

Every time there's a new version of 007 or Superman (or whatever) it's always compared with previous versions.

Click to expand...

Of course. But before you make those comparisons, take off the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. I don't know how many times I've watched someone scream about how something Abrams did "wasn't Star Trek", yet had been done multiple times before in other Trek series including TOS.